We will be defending Ben Brantley's review of Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella. Brantley is the chief theatre critic at the New York Times. He is a well-trusted source who even has his own website to showcase his review.
We will look at his on-the-fence tone, as well as his argument comparing the classical Cinderella with his politically correct progressive version.
We will talk about how he uses the history of past productions of Cinderella as well as pop culture references to support his argument as well as advance his tone. He uses this context to capture and engage the reader.
We will analyze the structure of the review, specifically looking at how he does a good job establishing and supporting his argument, but how his ending is confusing and falls flat. His "but" statement comes early on and addresses the idea of the pretty Cinderella against a more revolutionary Cinderella.
Overall, the review is well-written, informative, and engaging; Brantley clearly has done his research and addresses many important aspects of the production.
The review can be found here: http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/theater/reviews/rodgers-hammersteins-cinderella-at-broadway-theater.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Aliera & Nicole
Good pick! I thought this was really interesting as well--in particular the lede was grabbing. And the thing about the tiaras being sold in the lobby. --I thought this was a really good example of how impossible it is to review something without comparing it to other versions/similar stories.
ReplyDelete